The save the wild life so that I can shoot it merchant has retired, oh wow.

[ippy]

No-one said it is 'fair'.  It is, however, a system that works and does not need fixing.

If the none to publicised list of people that turn down honours was looked into I wouldn't have thought all of them were turning them down purely for reasons of modersty.

Although I'm unlikely to be awarded an honour of any kind this system, as it is it, removes so much value from the more deserved options, if an honour was offered to me I wouldn't want any part of this lot.

Immagine being awarded an houour from Big Ears, a man that has very little honour of his own that would enable him  to pass any honour on to others and we've no choice, he's next, so thanks very much for this rather brain dead idea of a system.

ippy

[Anchorman]

What twit would accept an 'Order of the british Empire" anyway?

[Gordon]

Well, I suppose I could ask a sort of variation of the NPF and ask you to define howit is dysfunctional! Intellectually , I can accept that there are probably some dry, colourless logical reasons why, but I still think the abandonment of the monarchy would take away something special, a historical part of the fabric of the indefinable specialness of the UK.

I'd have thought accountability and democracy were two areas where the institution of monarchy is dysfunctional, along with their general uselessness: as in doing nothing useful, but at our expense.

We know that the monarch stays in the post until death, unlike elected leaders who come and go and, generally speaking, leave only  books and chapters in history, and, again, colourless. We have a non-politically-biased affiliation to the person and family of the monarchy which I do not believe we would have to some president who would be elected.

Which sounds like an argument from tradition. I feel no sense of affiliation with this family whatsoever, and nor do I think that affiliation in itself is relevant since it is essentially subjective opinion. 

[SusanDoris]

If the none to publicised list of people that turn down honours was looked into I wouldn't have thought all of them were turning them down purely for reasons of modersty.

Although I'm unlikely to be awarded an honour of any kind this system, as it is it, removes so much value from the more deserved options, if an honour was offered to me I wouldn't want any part of this lot.

Immagine being awarded an houour from Big Ears, a man that has very little honour of his own that would enable him  to pass any honour on to others and we've no choice, he's next, so thanks very much for this rather brain dead idea of a system.

ippy

I didn't mention the honours system. I think that will fade away of its own accord, but the actual head of state role is the main thing that works and doesn't need fixing.

[Gordon]

I didn't mention the honours system. I think that will fade away of its own accord, but the actual head of state role is the main thing that works and doesn't need fixing.

I still don't get how the Queen as head of state 'works': she effectively does what the government decides is policy, so she is unnecessary, and we don't have the option to get rid of her so her position is undemocratic.

Apart from giving some a nice warm and cosy feeling of tradition I've yet to understand why this institution is in any sense worthy of being defended and maintained.

[Anchorman]

I didn't mention the honours system. I think that will fade away of its own accord, but the actual head of state role is the main thing that works and doesn't need fixing.

-
Apparantly, one of the daft anachronistic roles Elizabeth claims is the 'fount of honour'. That's why gongs are bestowed by her, or her representative (and a very good reason wwhy I wouldn't take one as a free gift - a group with which I was associated for many years was thinking of nominating me.....I made it clear what they could do with THAT idea in no uncertain terms.)

[ippy]

-
Apparantly, one of the daft anachronistic roles Elizabeth claims is the 'fount of honour'. That's why gongs are bestowed by her, or her representative (and a very good reason wwhy I wouldn't take one as a free gift - a group with which I was associated for many years was thinking of nominating me.....I made it clear what they could do with THAT idea in no uncertain terms.)

I often wonder how Phill and Big Ears manage to stand up with the weight of medals they've obviously worked so very hard for?

Is that right they get a medal for going to the lavatory; I hope it's a regular medal;  that pair of baboons, it's all so insulting.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

I still don't get how the Queen as head of state 'works': she effectively does what the government decides is policy, so she is unnecessary, and we don't have the option to get rid of her so her position is undemocratic.

Apart from giving some a nice warm and cosy feeling of tradition I've yet to understand why this institution is in any sense worthy of being defended and maintained.

Life would be more dull and colourless. The memorable occasions, the Gold Coach and all the trappings which people turn out in thousands to see and enjoy, as well as thousands of other reasons. I'm very glad none of it will be gone before I die.

Well, on this topic I'm going to call all the nay-sayers killjoys. What better, more colourful,more exhilarating, memorable, etc replacement would you  put forward?Bet you can't think of one! Remember, it has to appeal to ALL the people who follow, watch, photograph and read about the Queen and family.

[Nearly Sane]

Life would be more dull and colourless. The memorable occasions, the Gold Coach and all the trappings which people turn out in thousands to see and enjoy, as well as thousands of other reasons. I'm very glad none of it will be gone before I die.

Well, on this topic I'm going to call all the nay-sayers killjoys. What better, more colourful,more exhilarating, memorable, etc replacement would you  put forward?Bet you can't think of one! Remember, it has to appeal to ALL the people who follow, watch, photograph and read about the Queen and family.

Which as an argument could have been used to support bear baiting.

[Gordon]

Life would be more dull and colourless. The memorable occasions, the Gold Coach and all the trappings which people turn out in thousands to see and enjoy, as well as thousands of other reasons. I'm very glad none of it will be gone before I die.

Well, on this topic I'm going to call all the nay-sayers killjoys. What better, more colourful,more exhilarating, memorable, etc replacement would you  put forward?Bet you can't think of one! Remember, it has to appeal to ALL the people who follow, watch, photograph and read about the Queen and family.

As I already said I wouldn't replace it - just get rid!

I'm not convinced that the frippery is more important than the unearned and undemocratic privileges this lot enjoy at our expense, regarding which which have no option to disenfranchise them. What about the people who are unswayed by gold coaches and fawning sycophancy?

[ippy]

Gordon and N S have summed my reply to you on this subject between them Susan.

I like the bling and waving at a gold carriage as a justification for the hereditary system, this can hardly be considered an argument that matches your more usual application of rational logic on the forum Susan. 

ippy

[wigginhall]

Yes, the royal family are at the apex of the hierarchical social structure in the the UK.  For this reason alone, I see it as a negative force.   And also for this reason, many people will hang on to it for grim death, including people at the bottom. 

[Anchorman]

OK, we've had the chocolate biox flummery, the fake tradition bling, daft sights of unelected old duffers wearing enough medals to melt down and turn into a jeweller's dream, and the like. Nice. Still no-one's given even one sensible answer why I -or anyone else - should either acknowledge or defer to a person whose position is pure accident of birth.

[ippy]

OK, we've had the chocolate biox flummery, the fake tradition bling, daft sights of unelected old duffers wearing enough medals to melt down and turn into a jeweller's dream, and the like. Nice. Still no-one's given even one sensible answer why I -or anyone else - should either acknowledge or defer to a person whose position is pure accident of birth.

Quite!

ippy

[Udayana]

OK, we've had the chocolate biox flummery, the fake tradition bling, daft sights of unelected old duffers wearing enough medals to melt down and turn into a jeweller's dream, and the like. Nice. Still no-one's given even one sensible answer why I -or anyone else - should either acknowledge or defer to a person whose position is pure accident of birth.

You don't have to acknowledge or defer to them. Personally I couldn't give a fig for the monarchy however, so far on this thread, Susan has held up admirably. Logic has been invoked in vain, but not one good argument against the institution has actually been put has it?

It is a piece of decorative tat that people want to pay for, so why would you want to stop them?

[wigginhall]

Because it symbolizes inequality, hierarchy, and inherited wealth.   And deference.

[Nearly Sane]

You don't have to acknowledge or defer to them. Personally I couldn't give a fig for the monarchy however, so far on this thread, Susan has held up admirably. Logic has been invoked in vain, but not one good argument against the institution has actually been put has it?

It is a piece of decorative tat that people want to pay for, so why would you want to stop them?

Because as I covered a couple of times that contribute to a system  of inequality that contributes to sclerotic approach to democracy in the UK. I am happy if you want to day why that isn't a good argument but just saying there are no good arguments is hardly useful.

[Gordon]

You don't have to acknowledge or defer to them. Personally I couldn't give a fig for the monarchy however, so far on this thread, Susan has held up admirably. Logic has been invoked in vain, but not one good argument against the institution has actually been put has it?

It is a piece of decorative tat that people want to pay for, so why would you want to stop them?

I pointed out that it was undemocratic since they enjoy privilege within our governance system without accountability since we didn't elect them and there is no current option to remove them: I'd say that alone was sufficient argument for getting rid.

As far as I can see the only argument offered by the pro-monarchists here is a fallacious argument from tradition.

[SusanDoris]

You don't have to acknowledge or defer to them. Personally I couldn't give a fig for the monarchy however, so far on this thread, Susan has held up admirably. Logic has been invoked in vain, but not one good argument against the institution has actually been put has it?

It is a piece of decorative tat that people want to pay for, so why would you want to stop them?

*two or three 'thumbs up' emoticons here!!*]

[wigginhall]

Presumably, Udayana doesn't think any arguments offered have been good, but you can't really say that there have been no arguments against monarchy.   And if you think  the arguments have been poor, probably a good idea to say why.

[SusanDoris]

Well, all the killjoys can use logic and say that I'm using fallacies, until this thread runs out, but although other countries have monarchies of all sorts, ours is, I will assert(!), unique and is in a separate category of its own.
When people have made the effort to watch a particular occasion, and have possibly waited for hours to do so, do you see them frowning and looking grumpy? Are they moaning about the lack of democracy and the privilege etc? No, they are happy and smiling. Being there has made their day special. They'll remember and treasure the memory.  This will absolutely NOT be because they feel humble, overwhelmed by, inferior to, the person of the monarchy, but because they feellllll a  part of something solid and reliable.  that is beyond price.

I worked in High Holborn at one time when I was about 20 and the Queen was due to pass by, so we all went out on to the pavement and saw the car drive slowly by. The picture is still in my mind.  I have not been able since then to be personally at a big event in London for all sorts of reasons, but that's okay.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, all the killjoys can use logic and say that I'm using fallacies, until this thread runs out, but although other countries have monarchies of all sorts, ours is, I will assert(!), unique and is in a separate category of its own.
When people have made the effort to watch a particular occasion, and have possibly waited for hours to do so, do you see them frowning and looking grumpy? Are they moaning about the lack of democracy and the privilege etc? No, they are happy and smiling. Being there has made their day special. They'll remember and treasure the memory.  This will absolutely NOT be because they feel humble, overwhelmed by, inferior to, the person of the monarchy, but because they feellllll a  part of something solid and reliable.  that is beyond price.

I worked in High Holborn at one time when I was about 20 and the Queen was due to pass by, so we all went out on to the pavement and saw the car drive slowly by. The picture is still in my mind.  I have not been able since then to be personally at a big event in London for all sorts of reasons, but that's okay.

So if a Christian were to make the same argument about giving their religion privileges?

[Gordon]

Well, all the killjoys can use logic and say that I'm using fallacies, until this thread runs out, but although other countries have monarchies of all sorts, ours is, I will assert(!), unique and is in a separate category of its own.

Which is a nod towards tu quoque, another fallacy.

When people have made the effort to watch a particular occasion, and have possibly waited for hours to do so, do you see them frowning and looking grumpy? Are they moaning about the lack of democracy and the privilege etc? No, they are happy and smiling. Being there has made their day special. They'll remember and treasure the memory.  This will absolutely NOT be because they feel humble, overwhelmed by, inferior to, the person of the monarchy, but because they feellllll a  part of something solid and reliable.  that is beyond price.

Which is yet more argument from tradition with some added special pleading.

I worked in High Holborn at one time when I was about 20 and the Queen was due to pass by, so we all went out on to the pavement and saw the car drive slowly by. The picture is still in my mind.  I have not been able since then to be personally at a big event in London for all sorts of reasons, but that's okay.

I get that you're a fan but I've yet to see argument in favour of the monarchy that gets beyond, to paraphrase, 'it's traditional and it's nice to have': some people like steam trains on the same basis but I don't have to contribute the cost of their affections or expect those in charge of these train to have privileged status or an involvement in political governance arrangements.

[Nearly Sane]

Which is a nod towards tu quoque, another fallacy.

Don't see the tu quoque.

[Gordon]

Don't see the tu quoque.

I thought the 'although other countries have monarchies of all sorts, ours is, I will assert(!), unique and is in a separate category of its own.' was a nod in the direction of tu quoque by justifying monarchy on the basis that other countries had monarchies too (though, allegedly, ours is special).